Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nowden v. City of Taylor

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

April 10, 2017

JASMINE NOWDEN, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF TAYLOR, et al., Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS'

          ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Robert Beal filed the instant complaint alleging the following counts:

. Count I: a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Defendant Officer Brian Wojtowicz for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment;
. Count II: a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Defendant Wojtowicz for false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment;
. Count III: a claim for false arrest/imprisonment under Michigan law;
. Count IV: a malicious prosecution claim under Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2907;
. Count V: a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for malicious prosecution;
. Count VI: a claim that Defendant City of Taylor violated Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights by failing to adequately train and/or supervise its police officers, purportedly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and
. Count VII: a gross negligence claim under Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1407(2).

(Dkt. # 1.)

         Counts I, II, V, and VI allege federal claims over which the court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Counts III, IV, and VII are state-law claims. Because Plaintiffs state and federal law claims arise out of the same incident and share a common nucleus of operative fact, the court could exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. However, because an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction would not promote judicial economy, the convenience of the parties, fairness, or comity, the court will dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff's complaint alleges the following facts. On March 11, 2015, Plaintiff was pulled over by Defendant Officer Wojtowicz while she was driving into her apartment complex. Plaintiff demanded to know why she had been pulled over, and an argument between Plaintiff and Defendant Wojetowicz ensued.

         Defendant Wojtowicz ordered Plaintiff out of the car, and Plaintiff complied. Defendant then took her to the rear of his vehicle, out of sight of Plaintiff's passenger and Defendant's dash cam, where Defendant handcuffed Plaintiff. Defendant then “proceeded to slam Plaintiff . . . off of his vehicle” [sic] ad hit her, and “slammed Plaintiff's head off the trunk of his vehicle” all while Plaintiff remained handcuffed. Defendant then arrested Plaintiff for resisting an officer, obstructing a criminal investigation, driving with ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.